Ensure Certified Copies Of Judgements Are Issued As Per Section 76 Evidence Act

Case: Attorney General for India versus Satish and another

Coram: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela Trivedi

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1410 Of 2021

Court Observation: “Such a practice, if followed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, may allow the miscreants to manipulate or commit mischief in the judicial orders which are used as the public documents having great significance in the judicial proceedings.”

“It is very surprising to note that the Registry of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has certified the copy of the impugned judgment by affixing the stamp on the back side of every page of the judgment which is blank. The said copy of the judgment appears to have been downloaded from the website and, therefore, does not bear even the signature or the name of the concerned judge at the end of the judgment. The certificate that the said copy is a true copy of the judgment, is also not written at the foot of the judgment as contemplated in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such a practice, if followed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, may allow the miscreants to manipulate or commit mischief in the judicial orders which are used as the public documents having great significance in the judicial proceedings. The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, therefore, is directed to look into the matter and ensure that proper procedure for preparing the certified copies of the judgments/orders of the Court in accordance with law is followed”

“Unless there is a seal or certification as duly required under Section 76 of the Act, when it is not called a certified copy and even the High Court Rules in no way exempt from application of the said Section for the High Court to issue a certified copy, it is the duty of the registry of the High Court to take care in certifying in compliance with Section 76 of the Act. Thus, to the extent of return of the memo by the trial court to receive the documents as not duly certified as contemplated by Section 76 of the Act, there is nothing to interfere.”

[doc id=12067]

Previous Posts

Motor Accident Compensation: Claimants Entitled To ‘Future Prospects’ Even If Deceased Was Not Earning: Supreme Court

Constitutional Court Can Direct CBI To Register Case Despite Its Decision To Close Preliminary Enquiry: Supreme Court

Sec 7 POCSO – Main Ingredient Of Offence Of ‘Sexual Assault’ Is ‘Sexual Intent’ And Not ‘Skin To Skin” Contact: Supreme Court

Restricting ‘Touch’ Or ‘Physical Contact’ Only To ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Absurd: Supreme Court Reverses Bombay HC’s POCSO Judgment

‘Ambush PILs’ Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won’t Operate As Res Judicata: Supreme Court Download Judgement